Today's Political Truth - A Real Tax Plan hidden behind the protests....

Donald Trump today laid out his economic policy at a rally in Michigan before the Detroit Economic Club. In it, he laid out his economic plan as well as the updated tax brackets for individuals and companies that he states will be able to spur growth in all businesses and therefore help to increase private sector jobs.

INCOME TAX
Currently: Seven tax brackets start at 10 per cent and go up to 39.6 per cent
Under Trump: A zero tax band for the lowest earners, then bands of 12 per cent, 25 per cent and 33 per cent

ESTATE TAX
Currently: 40 per cent tax on all estates over $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9m for couples
Under Trump: Abolished

CHILD CARE
Currently: Up to 35 per cent of childcare costs of $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for two ore more is tax deductible. Actual amount depends on parents' income
Under Trump: 100 per cent of childcare costs tax deductible

CORPORATION TAX
Currently: Statutory rate of 35 per cent, effective rate can be as high as 39 per cent
Under Trump: Effective rate of 15 per cent

There have been some slight changes to the highest bracket and even a zero bracket for many workers. So, it seems he is taxing the rich more contrary to memes and the Clinton News Net...uh...I mean CNN.

But most of his largest applause lines were slaps at Clinton, including some that linked Democratic politicians to Detroit's crumbling, crime-ridden inner city. 'The city of Detroit is the living, breathing example of my opponent's failed economic agenda,' Trump said. 'Every policy that has failed this city, and so many others, is a policy supported by Hillary Clinton.' 'She supports the high taxes and radical regulation that forced jobs out of your community, and the crime policies have made you far, far less safe, and the immigration policies that have strained local budgets, and the trade deals like NAFTA, signed by her husband, that have shipped your jobs to Mexico and other countries.' 'And she supports the education policies that deny your students choice, freedom and opportunity,' he continued, to wild applause. 'She is the candidate of the past. Ours is the campaign of the future.'

How does the media react? Well, the bits above are about policy and take up a fraction of the article. It is all about the hate first.

Link

The majority is about the protests. 13 people were ejected from the rally.

A left-wing group called Michigan People's Campaign claimed credit for organizing the protest, and said its members each purchased tickets to the speech – which cost about $100 each according to audience members.

I am sure that 1300 dollars could have been used better. Like feeding homeless kids to clothing homeless veterans. It is sad really. Yelling "'Tiny hands! All you've got is tiny hands!' or another classic You have to answer to women, Mr. Trump!'. Misogyny and sexual innuendo...way to keep it classy there MPC.

He ignored them and went on to talk about how the House Republicans helped to draft the outline of the plan which increased to top tier, the high wage earners, to have to pay more.

So more trickle down voodoo that's failed for 40 years.


Well done.

I watched the full speech.

Certainly his taxes are a big boost to individuals and small business especially. One of the more important areas he covered was regulation. He said he was going to strip away the countless regulations that stifle businesses across the country - another win in my view.

Much of the inevitable criticism from the left has been about how the cuts will be funded. The commentators I saw on CNN could not really attack his plan other than saying it's not possible. To them, maybe it is not. Trump's advisor on this plan was Reagans advisor and he spelled out that the success of the plan should not be judged on anaemic GDP averages seen during Obama's presidency, but on an average figure closer to 4% (achieved the last time such a plan was implemented under Reagan). With that level the plan works (and then some).

This is a bold plan and is a direct challenge to the scores of Democrats (and some Republicans) that are firmly in the 'no we can't' mind set.

Worth noting that the tax reductions are somewhat of a compromise over Trump's original plan. He has aligned with Paul Ryan on the top tax level.

a reply to: UKTruth

He did. I mentioned that in the OP. We do not need to boost revenue we need to cut government spending. The opposite has gone on for over 10 years. The more people make the more they consume and the more we grow. People get off welfare and get jobs which reduces the cost of social programs. It is not really that hard.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
So more trickle down voodoo that's failed for 40 years.


Well done.

Actually the substance of his plan has not been tried since Reagan, when it worked.
Have you actually bothered listening to the speech, or is this some reactionary reflex that you couldn't control?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: UKTruth

He did. I mentioned that in the OP. We do not need to boost revenue we need to cut government spending. The opposite has gone on for over 10 years. The more people make the more they consume and the more we grow. People get off welfare and get jobs which reduces the cost of social programs. It is not really that hard.

His advisor spoke more about the need for growth as the priority and that he would be leaving alone social security and Medicare for now. It is very likely that those costs would come down if more people are working in jobs that pay a good wage of course.

As for the 14 protesters, they were a complete joke. They tried to put him off in a well coordinated series of interruptions 4 to 5 minutes apart through the entire speech. Disgusting and so obviously financed by the DNC. To Trump's credit he sailed through it and never got upset by them.

Well all Democrat supporting groups will be 100% against this of course.

Anything that helps ALL citizens is not in their plans.

All Democrat sponsored tax plans over the years has only "benefited" certain groups and classes of Citizens.

And as for Reagan, don't forget he had a Democrat majority House of Representatives all 8 years.

I watched the speech, and it seemed like a solid plan.

The changes that seem like they will have the most benefit is reduction in regulation on businesses, and drastically lower corporate taxes. This will result in higher employment, with more people paying taxes instead of being a burden on welfare.

His ideas for trade sound promising and make sense. They are the same things that he has been discussing, but he laid out more detail.

Note that he said that isolationism is not an option, contrary to propaganda. He believes in trade, but he wants trade agreements where Americans come out ahead instead of behind.

This would be the first tax plan to start at 0% since the Reagan years and Trump's plan is even more aggressive in that his top rate only goes to 33%, whereas Reagan's went up to 50%.

The years after Reagan's plan was implemented, GDP rose sharply and stayed at an average of over 4% through his term. The immediate boost was clear with a rate of over 7% two years after the tax changes.

Oh and one part that made me almost stand up and cheer - he wants to end the death tax.

He explained exactly why the death tax is unfair. People pay taxes their whole life, then when they die, the government wants to tax them again. That never seemed fair.

a reply to: BlueAjah

The death tax and bumping up the highest bracket showed me he means it. He is filthy rich but he is not making it easier on himself or other high wage earners. They will benefit from the Corporate Tax being reduced.

This is a clear indicator that people are not even paying attention to policies anymore.
If the average American were given 2 options like so.
How would you rather have taxes in your country?
Option A:

Making the Internal Revenue Code so simple and easy to understand that the IRS can be abolished.

Removing all marriage penalties from the Tax Code.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act, and the tax increases that it imposed (such as the 3.8% Medicare surtax on net investment income of higher-income individuals).

Considering all options to preserve Social Security without tax increases.

Reducing the corporate tax rate to be level with or below the rates charged by other industrialized nations.

Adopting a balanced budget amendment that would require a super-majority for tax increases.

Opposing any carbon tax.

Sounds like a fare sensible plan.
Option B:

Taxing some individual income above $250,000 to help fund Social Security.

Establishing a multimillionaire surtax to ensure that millionaires and billionaires pay their “fair share.”

Restoring “fair taxation” of multimillion dollar estates.

Expanding the earned income tax credit program for low-wage workers who are not raising children.

Liberalizing the child tax credit by making more of it refundable (meaning you don’t have to actually have a tax liability to collect it).

Clawing back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and cracking down on inversions and other strategies that companies use to “dodge their tax responsibilities.”

Ending tax deferral on foreign business profits.

Supporting a financial transactions tax to curb “excessive speculation” and high frequency trading.

Eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel companies and extending tax incentives that promote energy efficiency and clean energy.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act’s 40% excise tax on high-cost health insurance (not scheduled to take effect until 2020).

Half of this garbage doesn't even pertain to the average tax payer like myself.
Sure I am being effected by tax deferral's on foreign entities.
But how is closing the loophole going to effect my life directly? It won't make my take home income any higher or my taxes any lower.
I am however being directly effected by the complexities of the tax code in general.
All 65k pages of it!!

a reply to: matafuchs

ESTATE TAX Currently: 40 per cent tax on all estates over $5.45 million for individuals and $10.9m for couples Under Trump: Abolished

There has been a way around the estate tax forever, but not enough people take advantage of it. Whole Life Insurance policies had been a way around the high estate tax for awhile. Wealthy families have been using it since the 18th century at least. Yes, life Insurance is that old. The companies that really know what they doing have been around for at least a century.

Other than I would like to say, I like this plan.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The years after Reagan's plan was implemented, GDP rose sharply and stayed at an average of over 4% through his term. The immediate boost was clear with a rate of over 7% two years after the tax changes.

This was less due to his tax plan and more due to the changes in CPI which "stopped" inflation. Those same CPI changes that 30 years later have now resulted in stagnant/backwards wages.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Oh and one part that made me almost stand up and cheer - he wants to end the death tax.

He explained exactly why the death tax is unfair. People pay taxes their whole life, then when they die, the government wants to tax them again. That never seemed fair.

The death tax isn't about fairness, it's specifically designed to be unfair. I don't think the tax is really effective at what it's trying to do though because there's too many ways around it. Basically, the estate tax exists so that wealth can't build up from one generation to the next. It's to eliminate the eventual formation of an aristocracy, and instead let each member of each generation rise and fall on their own merits. That's why wealth in the US rarely lasts for more than 3 generations.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

The bottom line is - the government should not have a right to take what someone worked hard for their whole life at death. People should have a right to pass on to their heirs without giving the government a cut.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's why it needs to end. It's none of the government's business if a family works hard and then passes on what they earned to future generations. People should have a right to do that.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
So more trickle down voodoo that's failed for 40 years.


Well done.

Something wrong with keeping more of what you earn?

originally posted by: Aazadan
Basically, the estate tax exists so that wealth can't build up from one generation to the next.

How is that the government's business?

It's to eliminate the eventual formation of an aristocracy,

Paranoia.

and instead let each member of each generation rise and fall on their own merits.

Each generation will rise or fall on its own merits no matter what. If my son can't handle property that he inherits from me he'll squander it without the government's help.

It hasnt appeared as if the estate tax has prevented any aristocracy considering the family names that still run this land's industry, infrastructure and food.